We have already given a general appraisal of “otzovism” and
“ultimatumism” in Proletary,
No. 42.[1]
Concerning the resolution of the St. Petersburg otzovists (reprinted in this
issue) which served as their platform during the election of delegates to the
December Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (and unfortunately was not
communicated to Proletary till after the conference) we have
to repeat much of what was said there.

This resolution simply teems with fallacious, un-Marxian
arguments. Practically every point in it is evidence of the immaturity of
its authors’ ideas or of their oblivion of the ABC of
Social-Democracy. Point 1: “The first stage of the revolution is
concluded....” What does that mean? That a stage in social and economic
development is concluded? Probably not. The authors have in mind the end of
the stage of direct revolutionary struggle of the masses. We must assume
that the otzovists mean that, if we are not to impute to them something
totally absurd. If that is the case, then they admit that present
conditions are unfavourable for the direct revolutionary struggle of the
masses. But although compelled by the force of circumstances to admit this,
the otzovists are unable to reason out the conclusions that
follow, and cannot, therefore, get their arguments to hang
together. “Russia... is moving towards a new revolutionary
upswing”.... Quite right! She is only moving towards an upswing,
i. e., there is no upswing yet—that is what this means, both in logic and
in grammar! It appears, however, that this still non-existing upswing is
“characterised by
a sharp conflict”, etc. The result is utter nonsense. The otzovists are
incapable of characterising the present. They “characterise” the future,
which we are “moving towards”, in order to cover up failure to understand
the present. For instance, the “pauperised town petty bourgeoisie” jump
into the picture from God knows where, and the reference to them is not
backed by even an attempt at an analysis. Why the future upswing should be
“characterised” by a sharp conflict of pauperised petty bourgeois is not
evident at all. Nor does there appear to be any reason why the pauperised
town petty bourgeoisie should be brought in just at this
moment. Lumpen-proletarians are sometimes distinguished for their
sharp conflicts, and sometimes for their amazing instability and
inability to fight. The otzovists’ ideas are utterly con fused, and we are
not surprised that at the conference of the R.S.D.L.P. only two
Bundists voted with the two otzovists for the insertion of
the reference to the “pauperised town petty bourgeoisie”. Our opinion
that otzovism is opportunism turned inside out has been magnificently borne
out.

With whom will the sharp conflict take place? “With the ruling bloc of
the big bourgeoisie and feudalist land lords.” And not with the autocracy?
The otzovists cannot distinguish absolutism, which is manoeuvring between
these two classes, from the direct rule of the two classes; with the absurd
result that the struggle against the autocracy drops out of the picture
entirely.

“Secret work is going on to organise the forces....” The work of
learning the lessons of experience, of digesting new lessons, of
accumulating strength may be, and often is, performed in secret; but the
organisation of forces cannot be performed in secret even when all
work is driven under ground. In 1901-03 the organisation of forces
proceeded illegally, but not secretly. The otzovists are merely repeating
scraps of parrot-phrases and garbling them in the process.

Point 2: “The solution of this conflict, in view of the strongly
developed class antagonisms in Russia, will assume the form of a
revolution”.... Class antagonisms in Russia are less strongly developed
than in Europe, which is not faced with the task of fighting autocracy. The
otzovists fail to see that in trying to broaden their views they are coming
closer to their antipodes, the opportunists.

“...a revolution which will lead to an armed uprising....” The
otzovists have not yet told us anything distinctly about the
object of the struggle, or about the present stage of development
of the autocracy; but they make haste to tell us about the means
of struggle in order to proclaim them selves “revolutionaries”. This is
childish, dear comrades, for you are showing us once again that you
have learnt by heart scraps of good phrases, without
understanding what they mean. The attitude of the revolutionary
Social-Democrats towards insurrection was different in 1897, 1901, and in
1905. It was only after January 9, 1905 that they made it a key
issue—although Russia, in 1897 and in 1901, was undoubtedly “moving
towards upswing”, towards a “sharp conflict” and towards
“revolution”. It is not enough to learn slogans by heart; one must also
learn to judge the opportune moment to issue them. To advocate one
of the means of struggle at a time when the “upswing” has not begun and
“revolution”, in the most strict and direct sense of the term, is still a
matter of the future (and the otzovists speak of it in the future:
“will assume the form of a revolution”) means only to make oneself
into a caricature of a revolutionary Social-Democrat. The resolution
adopted by the conference speaks of a developing revolutionary crisis and
of the aim of the struggle (conquest of power by the revolutionary
classes); more than this cannot and should not be said at the
present time.

How the mysterious “municipal reforms” got here, and represented as
“radical reforms” at that, God only knows. Apparently the otzovists
themselves do not know what this means.

Point 3: “In view of this, Social-Democracy as a consistently
revolutionary party must put non-parliamentary action in the
forefront.”...

And yet there are people (the ultimatumists) who are so short-sighted
that our disagreements with the otzovists seem to them differences only
about practical matters, disagreements over the ways and means of applying
a common line of tactics! In the summer of 1907 the disagreement over
boycotting the Third Duma might have been regarded merely as a disagreement
over methods, and the mistake of the boycottists merely as a mistake in
choice of methods
in applying tactics with which all Bolsheviks were agreed. Today, in 1909,
it is ridiculous even to suggest such a thing. The mistake of the otzovists
and ultimatumists has developed into a deviation from the principles of
Marxism. Just think: “In view of this”, i. e., in view of the
fact that we are “moving towards” an upswing, and that the conflict
“will assume the form of a revolution”, “in view of this” let
non-parliamentary action be put in the forefront! Why, comrades, this is
merely a jumble of words to cover up a monstrous confusion of ideas! Before
you have even said a word about the Duma in your resolution, you have
already concocted the conclusion: “in view of this”
... “non-parliamentary action”! In view of the fact that we do not under
stand the importance of the Duma and the tasks of the Party at a time when
an upswing is maturing, we proclaim that struggle must be outside the
Duma—that is the nonsense that the otzovists’ case amounts to. They have
repeated, without understanding them, scraps of arguments which the
Bolsheviks advanced at a time when non-parliamentary action was not merely
being proclaimed, but carried on by the masses; and
repeated them at a time when they them selves consider “the first stage of
the revolution concluded”, i. e., that for the time being the conditions
for direct mass action are absent.

Theyhave learned by heart the sound proposition that work in
the Duma must be subordinated to the interests and direction of the
working-class movement outside the Duma, and repeat scraps of what
they have learned irrelevantly, and in a garbled, scarcely recognisable
form.

Instead of emphasising the necessity of continuing— in addition to
work in the Duma—to devote maximum effort to persistent, prolonged and
painstaking organisation and agitation among the masses outside the
Duma—the otzovists, in company with the Socialist-Revolutionaries, raise
a “revolutionary” yelp about “non-parliamentary action”, making an
onslaught, and so forth.

“Direct action is impossible at. the present time,” say the otzovists
at the end of the resolution (Point 1), although at the beginning of it
they proclaimed a non-parliamentary struggle. If this is not a
caricature of Bolshevism, what is?

“And work to carry the revolution through to complete victory First,
the scrap of an idea about the means of struggle, then its object!
... “and for this purpose to organise the proletariat and the broad masses
of the peasant ry”....At a time like the present, when the first and
foremost task is to strengthen and rebuild the semi-destroyed Party
organisations, this is a mere phrase, comrades!

Point 4 is one of the gems of “otzovism”. “The Party may employ only
such forms of organisational and agitational action as do not obscure or
weaken the revolutionary struggle

This, according to the “practical” ultimatumists, is the
“practical” way of stating the issue! In 1909 the otzovists are
compelled to search for theoretical justification and the quest
inevitably bogs them down. “Only such forms of action as do not
obscure...”—this is a broad hint at the work of the Social-Democrats in
the Duma and at their utilisation of semi-legal and legal organisations. It
appears, then, that there are some “forms of action” which obscure and
others which do not. In order to save people who are unable to think the
trouble of using their brains, let us draw up a list of “forms of action”
and cross out those which “obscure”—now that will be real revolutionary
tactics!

Take legal literature, for instance, dear comrades. Does this “form of
organisational and agitational action” obscure, or does it not? Of course
it does, under the Stolypin regime. Then it must be eliminated according to
the otzovists, who do not know how to distinguish the conditions
in which revolutionary Social-Democrats may resort to the most varied
forms of action, and therefore talk nonsense. “The Party must pay
special attention to the utilisation and reinforcement of existing
organisations and the formation of new illegal, semi-legal and, where
possible, legal organisations that could serve as its strongholds,”
declares the resolution of the conference, proposed and carried by the
Bolsheviks. This resolution is as remote from otzovism as heaven
is from earth. “Only such forms as do not obscure”— is just a
hollow phrase: a mere “yelp”, and not a revolutionary utterance. The
formation of illegal Party “workers’ committees” to utilise
“semi-legal and, where possible, legal organisations”—these are the
tactics of revolutionary
Social-Democrats who take into account what “forms of organisational and
agitational action” are prescribed by the present situation, and who are
able to display methods of genuine Social-Democratic activity in
the most diverse “forms”.

“Down with legal Social-Democratic literature” is a hollow phrase,
impracticable and therefore only to the advantage of the
opportunists—who are perfectly well aware that it is
impracticable. It is difficult to draw a line between Social-Democrats who
are ready to answer to the Party for their legal writings and non-Party
literary hacks; but it is possible, and it provides a real line of activity
for those who want to work with the Party. “Down with the legal Duma
group, down with legal organisations”—these are hollow phrases which
are only to the advantage of the opportunists who would be glad to rid
themselves of Party control. To keep on exercising this control,
“utilising” legal organisations, rectifying every mistake and
tactical blunder committed by Social-Democrats—this is Party work, which
we and all those who wish to carry out the decisions of the conference will
continue to do.

The end of Point 4: “strenuously opposing all deals between the
counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie and the autocracy.”

Ugh! The otzovists will insist on inappropriately repeating
scraps of ideas drawn from Bolshevik literature. Really, comrades, you must
try to make out what’s what! In the period of the First and Second Dumas,
the government was still groping its way towards such deals, while
the Cadets were recommending deals to the people as slogans of “struggle”
(slogans which misled even the Menshevik Social- Democrats). At that
time a resolute struggle against any deals was really the
slogan of the day, the task of the moment, the exposure of fraud. Today
tsarism has found the way to conclude the deal, and has already done so,
with those classes which the otzovists themselves refer to as a “bloc”;
and moreover no one is deceived by the deal which has been concluded in the
Third Duma. To make the task of “strenuously opposing all deals”
the pivot of our agitation today means making oneself a caricature of
Bolshevism.

Point 5: “Our Duma cannot be .regarded as a parliament working in an
environment of political liberty, and with a measure of freedom for the
class struggle of the proletariat, but is merely a deal between tsarism and
the big bourgeoisie”.... This contains two mistakes. It is wrong to say
“not a parliament but a deal”, for quite a number of
the world’s parliaments are nothing more than a deal between the
bourgeoisie (at various stages of development) and various survivals of
medievalism. We had to, and did, fight to prevent Russia’s first parliament
from being a Black-Hundred and Octobrist parliament; but once it became
such in spite of our efforts—and history obliged us to pass through this
stage—it is childish to try to exorcise this unpleasant reality with
exclamations and declamations. Secondly: according to the authors of the
resolution, if there is a “measure of freedom” then it is a
“parliament”; if not, it is a “fraud”. This is a vulgar—democratic
view, worthy of a Cadet but not of a Marxist. Under the Third Duma there is
much less freedom than there was under the Second; but the Third Duma is a
less fictitious parliament, because it more truly
reflects the actual relation between the state authority and the
present ruling classes. As long as power is in the hands of the tsar and
the feudalist landlords, there can be no other parliament in bourgeois
Russia. It might befit Cadets to try to brush this bare truth under the
carpet, but not Social-Democrats.

Point 6, by way of an exception, is correct. But this is precisely an
exception which proves the reverse rule, because ... because on this point
the otzovists are expounding, not their own ideas, but the .ideas of the
anti-otzovists who carried the resolutions at the conference.

Conclusions. Point (a) “The Duma being ... a deal ... and a weapon of
the counter-revolution” .... Quite right! ... “only serves to bolster up
the autocracy”.... This “only” is wrong. The autocracy has staved off
its downfall by organising such a Duma in time: but it has riot been
strengthened thereby, rather on the contrary, advanced in its
decay. The Duma, as a “screen”, is more effective than many an
“exposure”, because for the first time, on a thou sand and one issues, it
reveals tsarism’s dependence on the counter-revolutionary sections of
society; it is for the first
time demonstrating en grand how close is the alliance between
Romanov and Purishkevich, between tsarism and the “Union of the Russian
People”, between the autocracy and the Dubrovins, the Iliodors and the
Polovnyovs.

That the Duma sanctions the crimes of tsarism is beyond doubt; but it
is the sanction of particular classes, on be half of particular class
interests, and it is the duty of the Social-Democrats precisely to use the
Duma rostrum to reveal these instructive truths of the class struggle.

“The eight months’ proceedings of the Third Duma have shown that the
Social-Democrats cannot make use of it.”

Here is the very essence of otzovism, the error of which our
“ultimatumists” are only covering up, confusing the issue by their
ridiculous equivocation—that since we have spent so much energy on
creating a Duma group, we must not recall it lightly!

There is a straightforward question, and evasions won’t do: have these
eight months’ proceedings proved that it is possible to make use of the
rostrum of the Duma, or not? The otzovists’ reply is wrong. In spite of the
immense difficulties involved in Party guidance of the Duma group,
it has beyond question proved the possibility of making use of the
Duma as a platform. To be daunted by difficulties and mistakes is timidity;
it is intellectual “yelping”, whereas what we want is patient, consistent
and persistent proletarian effort. Other socialist parties in Europe
encountered even greater difficulties at the beginning of their
parliamentary activity, and made many more mistakes, but they did not shirk
their duty. They succeeded in overcoming the difficulties and in correcting
their mistakes.

(b) “Our Duma group ... persistently pursuing opportunist tactics,
could not and cannot be a staunch and consistent representative of the
revolutionary proletariat.”

The grandest truths can be vulgarised, otzovist comrades, the noblest
aims can be reduced to mere phrase-mongering— and that is what
you are doing. You have degraded the fight against opportunism into mere
phrase-mongering, and are thereby only playing into the hands of the
opportunists. Our Duma group has made and is making mistakes, but by its
very work it has proved that it “could and can” staunchly and
consistently represent the proletariat—could and can,
when we, the Party, guide it, help it, appoint our best men to lead it,
draw up directives, and draft speeches, and explain the harmful and fatal
effects of taking advice from the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia who, not
only in Russia but all over the world, always gain easy access to
all kinds of institutions on the parliamentary fringe.

Have the courage to admit, comrades, that we have as yet done far too
little to provide this real guidance of the work of the Duma
group, to help it with deeds. Have the courage to admit that we
can do ten times as much in this direction, if we succeed in
strengthening our organisations, consolidating our Party, bringing it
closer to the masses, creating Party media exercising a constant influence
on large sections of the proletarians. That is what we are working for,
that is what everybody must work for who wants to fight opportunism in
deeds and not in words.

The otzovists have reduced the struggle against opportunism in the Duma
group to a mere phrase. They have learned words by rote without
understanding the difference between anarchist and Social-Democratic
criticism of opportunism. Take the anarchists. They all pounce on every
mistake every Social-Democratic member of parliament makes. They all shout
that even Bebel once made a speech in an almost patriotic spirit,
once took up a wrong stand on the agrarian programme, and so on and so
forth. True, even Bebel made opportunist mistakes in his parliamentary
career. But what does this prove? The anarchists say that it proves that
all the workers’ M.P.s should be recalled. The anarchists rail at the
Social-Democratic members of parliament and re fuse to have anything to do
with them, refuse to do anything to develop a proletarian party, a
proletarian policy and proletarian members of parliament. And in practice
the anarchists’ phrase-mongering converts them into the truest accomplices
of opportunism, into the reverse side of opportunism.

Social-Democrats draw quite a different conclusion from their
mistakes—the conclusion that even Bebel could not become Bebel
without prolonged Party work in training up real Social-Democratic
representatives. They need not tell us, “We have no Bebels in our group.”
Bebels are not born. They have to be made. Bebels don’t spring fully formed
like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, but are created by the Party
and the working class. Those who say we have no Bebels don’t know the history of
the German Party: they don’t know that there was a time, under the
Anti-Socialist Law, when August Bebel made opportunist blunders and that the
Party corrected him, the Party guided
Bebel.[2]

(c) “The continued presence of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma ... can
only do harm to the interests of the proletariat ... lower the dignity and
influence of the Social-Democrats.” To show how “quantity passes into
quality” in these preposterous exaggerations, and how anarchist phrases
grow out of them (irrespective of whether our otzovist comrades, desire
it or not), we need only refer to Belousov’s speech during the 1909 budget
debate. If such speeches are considered as “harmful”, and not as
proof that the rostrum of the Duma can and must be utilised, then our
disagreement ceases to be a mere difference of opinion about the character of a
speech, and becomes a disagreement concerning, the fundamental principles of
Social-Democratic tactics.

(I) “Launch a wide campaign ... for the slogan: ’Down with the Third Duma"’

We have already said in Proletary, No. 39, that this slogan, which for
a time appealed to some anti-otzovist workers, is
wrong.[3]
It is either a Cadet slogan, calling for franchise reform under the autocracy,
or a repetition of words learned by rote from the period when liberal Dumas were
a screen for counter-revolutionary tsarism, designed to prevent the people from
seeing clearly who their real enemy was.

(II) “Recall ... the Duma group; this will emphasise both ... the character of
the Duma and the revolutionary tactics of the Social-Democrats."

This is a paraphrase of the proposition advanced by the Moscow otzovists, that
the recall of the Duma group will emphasise that the revolution is not dead and
buried. Such a conclusion—we repeat the words of Proletary, No. 39,
“emphasises” only the burial of those Social-Democrats who
are capable of arguing in this way. They bury themselves thereby as
Social-Democrats; they lose all feeling for genuine proletarian revolutionary
work; and for that reason they are so painfully contorting themselves to
“emphasise” their revolutionary phrases.

(III) “Devote all efforts to organisation and preparation for open ... struggle
Land therefore renounce open agitation from the rostrum of the Duma! I... and to
propaganda”, etc., etc.

The otzovists have forgotten that it is unseemly for Social-Democrats to refuse
to conduct propaganda from the rostrum of the Duma.

At this point they give us the argument repeated by some ultimatumists, that
“there is no sense in wasting energy on hopeless work in the Duma, let us use
all our forces more productively”. This is not reasoning, but
sophistry, which— again irrespective of whether the authors desire it or
not— leads to anarchist conclusions. For in all countries the
anarchists, pointing to the mistakes committed by Social- Democratic members of
parliament, argue that it is “a waste of time to bother with bourgeois
parliamentarism” and call for the concentration of “all these forces” on
organising “direct action”. But this leads to disorganisation and to the
shouting of “slogans” which are futile because they are isolated, instead of
conducting work in every field on the widest possible scale. It only seems to
the otzovists and ultimatumists that their argument is new, and applies
only to the Third Duma. But they are wrong. It is a common argument
heard all over Europe, and it is not a Social-Democratic argument.

Thus, otzovism and ultimatumism are a caricature of Bolshevism. What gave rise
to this caricature? Of course, the fallacies of Bolshevism as a whole, the
Menshevik has tens to declare. Such a conclusion, undoubtedly, is very
“profitable” for the Mensheviks. Unfortunately for them, however, objective
facts do not corroborate, but refute it. The objective facts are that in the
development not only of Bolshevism, but of Russian Marxism in general,
there was a period when Marxism was caricatured, and that Russian
Marxism grew strong and developed in struggle with these growing pains,
pains which accompanied the expansion of its sphere of influence. Russian
Marxism was born at the beginning of the eighties of the last century in
the works of a group of political emigrants (the Emancipation of Labour
group).

But Marxism did not become a trend of Russian social thought and a constituent
part of the working-class movement in Russia until the middle of the nineties of
the last century, when a “wave” of Marxian literature and of a
Social-Democratic working-class movement arose in Russia. And what happened?
This wave carried with it a caricature of Marxism in the shape of
Struvism on the one hand and Rabocheye Dyelo-ism and Economism on the
other. Marxism grew and matured because it did not conceal the disagreements in
its ranks, did not play the diplomat (as the Mensheviks do with Maslov,
Cherevanin, Kuskova, Prokopovich, Valentinov, Yermansky and Co.), but waged a
victorious campaign against the caricature, which had been engendered
by the deplorable conditions of Russian life and the turning- point in the
historical development of socialism in Russia. And Bolshevism will grow up and
become strong, making no attempt to conceal the incipient distortion of
its principles by a caricature engendered by the deplorable conditions of
Russian life and the turning-point in the counter-revolutionary period, but
openly explaining to the masses into what a bog the otzovists and ultimatumists
would lead the Duma group and the Party.